Interesting.
To jump in late, I'm a big believer in the idea of "separate worlds" -- that is, that science and religion are basically separate, provide humans with different kinds of insight, and don't need to be in conflict. The purpose of science is to observe the empirical nature of the world, use those observations to create generalized theories, and then apply those observations and theories into improvements to human life (technology). The purpose of religion is to suggest answers to those questions which cannot be answered via observation of the empirical and to provide guidance and support to those in search of meaning, comfort, and community. (In doing so, religion heavily overlaps with philosophy and ethics, but conflating them is a fallacy, for reasons I've discussed at great length before.) The overlap comes in the mind of individuals and the idea that, for better or worse, our sense of meaning will be informed by our empirical observations of the world, and our use and development of technology will be informed by our beliefs and moral codes.
I've always been a little confused by the need to single out cases where scientists were also people of faith -- because, honestly, what difference should it make? The biggest fallacy that seems to be in place with our thinking about this issue is the idea that our spiritual and philosophical beliefs somehow influence the evidence that can be empirically observed -- as if, say, someone who believes in a supreme Creator has to dismiss the vast array of evidence for evolution out of hand, instead of considering the possibility of evolution as a mechanism of the Creator's work. As a scientist, your job is to observe and use empirical evidence to suggest conclusions, no matter what non-empirically-established opinions you may hold. There isn't even any dichotomy there.
Author
Topic: Human Genome Scientist Finds God in the Details (RELIGION AND SCIENCE) (Read 6771 times)